[Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't diagnosable

Michael A. Ivie mivie at montana.edu
Tue Dec 6 19:03:18 CST 2016


Amusing example!

On the other point,  using the Principle of Typification, if you have a 
type, you know the species, what you don't know is what other 
individuals belong to it.  I am making the unsupported assumption that 
Stuart does not have a type. If that is wrong, it goes to you as correct.

Mike



On 12/6/2016 5:57 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Mike,
>
> It is still technically a nomen dubium if you cannot associate the name with a unique recognised species. After all, where would you draw the line? I know it is an animal, but I don't know what kind of animal. I know it belongs to the Aus bus species complex, but I don't know which species. It is all the same.
>
> BTW, somewhat amusingly, if anyone is inclined to take the Code too literally, how about this then?
>
> 1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed
>
> 1.3.1. for hypothetical concepts;
>
> Since species are hypothetical concepts (i.e. species are hypotheses to be tested), the Code explicitly excludes names for all species of animals!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 7/12/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type species isn't diagnosable
>   To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 1:29 PM
>   
>   
>       Stephen, I think we are talking at cross purposes.
>   In your
>         example, you know what the type is, in Stuart's
>   example he says
>         it is "nomen dubium."  I take this to be
>   "...a
>           scientific name that is of unknown or doubtful
>   application."
>         This is different.  In your example, you have a type,
>   and you know
>         what it is, but you cannot associate other specimens
>   with it
>         exactly.  In his, he simply does not know that the
>   species name
>         applies to at all.  If this is not what Stuart meant,
>   then you are
>         right.
>   
>       
>       Mike
>   
>       
>       
>   
>       On 12/6/2016
>   5:20 PM, Stephen Thorpe
>         wrote:
>   
>       
>       
>         Hmm, now, Mike! You say"It is a fact that if
>   you don't know what the type species is, you cannot, by
>   definition, know what the genus is".
>   
>   I disagree! You might know that the type species belongs
>   within a group of cryptic species (which are clearly
>   congeneric), but not know which of them it is (if the DNA
>   cannot be sequenced, etc.)
>   
>   Stephen
>   
>   
>   --------------------------------------------
>   On Wed, 7/12/16, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
>   wrote:
>   
>    Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Retaining genus when its type
>   species isn't	diagnosable
>    To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>    Received: Wednesday, 7 December, 2016, 1:17 PM
>    
>    Francisco,
>    
>    I agree that you can do what
>    you say, as many practices do not follow
>    the Code, and in fact work pretty well
>    anyway.  BUT, Stuart asked about
>    "best practice."  It is a fact that
>    if you don't know what the type
>    species
>    is, you cannot, by definition, know what the genus is.
>    Anyone
>    could come along and perfectly
>    validly (if unadvisedly) designate pretty
>    much anything as the Neotype, and render all
>    those other species
>    incorrectly placed.
>    Arts. 75.3.5 and 75.3.6 give great latitude to
>    deviate from the original concept.
>    
>    75.3.5. evidence that the
>    neotype is consistent with what is known of
>    the former name-bearing type from the original
>    description and from
>    other sources;
>    *however, a neotype may be based on a different sex or
>    life stage, if necessary or desirable to secure
>    stability of nomenclature;**
>    *
>    75.3.6. evidence that the neotype came as
>    *nearly as practicable* from
>    the original
>    type locality [Art. 76.1] and, where relevant, from the
>    same geological horizon or host species as the
>    original name-bearing
>    type (see also
>    Article 76.3 and Recommendation 76A.1);
>    
>    Best practice requires the stabilization of a
>    Neotype.
>    
>    Mike
>    
>    
>    On 12/6/2016
>    5:09 PM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
>    > You can certainly continue adding species
>    to that genus.
>    >
>    > I
>    understand that the type species cannot be firmly
>   associated
>    with
>    > any existing known species, but
>    it certainly belongs to a group of
>    >
>    species currently regarded to represent that genus. As long
>    as nothing
>    > happens the type species
>    can remain a doubtful name within this genus.
>    >
>    > The problem arises
>    once someone likes to split up the genus, and it is
>    > impossible to tell to which subgroup the
>    doubtful type species might
>    > belong. In
>    this case some action needs to be taken.
>    >
>    > Francisco
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    Am 07.12.2016 um 00:24 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
>    >> Hi Stuart,
>    >>
>    There is no real problem that I can see with the type
>    species of a
>    >> genus being a nomen
>    dubium. You could try, if you really wanted to,
>    >> lodging an application with the ICZN
>    for designation of a neotype for
>    >>
>    the type species, but if they don't see a real need,
>    they might not
>    >> bother.
>    >> Cheers,
>    >>
>    Stephen
>    >>
>    >>
>    --------------------------------------------
>    >> On Wed, 7/12/16, Stuart Longhorn
>    <sjl197 at hotmail.com>
>    wrote:
>    >>
>    >>   Subject: [Taxacom]
>    Retaining genus when its type species isn't
>    >> diagnosable
>    >>   To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
>    <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>    >>   Received: Wednesday, 7
>    December, 2016, 12:06 PM
>    >>
>       Can someone explain to me the best practice of
>    how to treat
>    >>   a
>    genus/species when the genus is identifiable but the
>    >>   species identity of the
>    type species is not?
>    >>
>       e.g. Genus Aus Smith 1900
>    >>     With designated type
>    species Aus xus Smith 1900
>    >>
>       and several other species added later.
>    >>       If the type species
>    is not identifiable (as a 'species'),
>    >>   but the 'genus'
>    perse is from that/associated description,
>    >>   is it ok for the genus to
>    be retained as valid (including
>    >>   possibly adding other
>    species to the genus), while its type
>    >>   species simply can become
>    nomen dubium?
>    >>
>       From this
>    >>
>       67.1.2. The name of a type species remains
>    unchanged even
>    >>   when it
>    is a junior synonym or homonym, or a suppressed name
>    >>   (see Article
>    >> 81.2.1<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=81#2.1>).
>    >>       Thanks in
>    advance
>    >>     stuart
>    >>   _______________________________________________
>    >>   Taxacom Mailing List
>    >>   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>    >>   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>    >>   The Taxacom Archive back
>    to 1992 may be searched at:
>    >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>    >>     Injecting Intellectual
>    Liquidity for 29 years.
>    >>   _______________________________________________
>    >> Taxacom Mailing List
>    >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>    >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>    >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
>    be searched at:
>    >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>    >>
>    >> Injecting
>    Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
>    >
>    >
>    _______________________________________________
>    > Taxacom Mailing List
>    >
>    Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>    > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>    > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
>    searched at:
>    > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>    >
>    > Injecting
>    Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
>    
>    --
>    __________________________________________________
>    
>    Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
>    F.R.E.S.
>    
>    NOTE: two
>    addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>    
>    US Post Office Address:
>    Montana Entomology Collection
>    Marsh Labs, Room 50
>    PO Box
>    173145
>    Montana State University
>    Bozeman, MT 59717
>    USA
>    
>    UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
>    Montana Entomology Collection
>    Marsh Labs, Room 50
>    1911 West
>    Lincoln Street
>    Montana State University
>    Bozeman, MT 59718
>    USA
>    
>    
>    (406)
>    994-4610 (voice)
>    (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
>    mivie at montana.edu
>    
>    _______________________________________________
>    Taxacom Mailing List
>    Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>    http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>    The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
>    searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>    
>    Injecting Intellectual
>    Liquidity for 29 years.
>    
>   
>   .
>   
>   
>       
>       
>   
>       --
>   __________________________________________________
>   
>   Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>   
>   NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on
>   carriers
>   
>   US Post Office Address:
>   Montana Entomology Collection
>   Marsh Labs, Room 50
>   PO Box 173145
>   Montana State University
>   Bozeman, MT 59717
>   USA
>   
>   UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
>   Montana Entomology Collection
>   Marsh Labs, Room 50
>   1911 West Lincoln Street
>   Montana State University
>   Bozeman, MT 59718
>   USA
>   
>   
>   (406) 994-4610 (voice)
>   (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
>   mivie at montana.edu
>   
>   
>     
>
> .
>

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu



More information about the Taxacom mailing list